On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> We have no worktree specific config yet, though patches for
>> this were floated on the mailing list.
>>
>> Though recent versions of git learned to conditionally include
>> config files. (look for includeIf in man git-config), which I think
>> could be used to set the option gerrit.createChangeId depending
>> on the worktree you are in.
>>
>>> Any idea how I can get around this problem without having separate
>>> repositories for kernel and android ?
>>
>> The proposed approach above might be hacky but sounds as if
>> it should work?
>
> If you meant "conditional include" by "proposed approach above", I
> do not see which part you found possibly hacky.
Compared to a per-worktree configuration that you can setup via
git config --for-worktree=X key value
the setup using conditional includes seems hacky to me.
(I just realize that these conditional includes can be set using
regular git-config, so maybe it is not as hacky as I thought.)
> It is to allow
> different set of configurations to apply depending on where you are
> working at, which I think was invented exactly for something like
> this.
>From a UX perspective, I can imagine a way easier workflow,
but the data model seems to make sense.
> It certainly is not any hackier than using the same repository to
> house separately manged projects even if they may be related
> projects.
Well it is the same project with different upstream workflows.
For example I would imagine that Viresh wants to cherry-pick
from one branch to another, or even send the same patch
(just with different commit messages, with or without the
ChangeId) to the different upstreams?
> Where does the aversion of "having separate repositories" primarily
> come from? Is it bad due to disk consumption? Is it bad because
> you cannot do "git diff android-branch kernel-branch"? Something
> else?
Yeah, that is an interesting question!
(I suspect workflow related things, diff/cherry-pick)
> If it is purely disk consumption that is an issue, perhaps the real
> solution is to make it easier to maintain separate repositories
> while sharing as much disk space as possible. GC may have to be
> made a lot more robust in the presense of alternate object stores,
> for example.
